TIG Post

Tag: Supreme Court

  • Speaker Bagbin’s full statement in parliament before adjournment

    Speaker Bagbin’s full statement in parliament before adjournment

    Speaker Alban Bagbin has adjourned Parliament indefinitely. This decision follows the ongoing controversy surrounding his ruling on the vacant seats in Parliament.

    Speaker Bagbin addressed the house, stating:

    Honourable members, as you may recall, on Thursday, I informed the House, pursuant to Standing Order 18 of the Standing Orders of Parliament, on the occurrence of vacancies in the House in relation to four honourable members.

    Yesterday, I received a process from the Supreme Court, which is a ruling pursuant to an ex parte application, directing Parliament to recognize and allow the four affected Members of Parliament to duly represent their constituents and conduct the full scope of duties of their offices as Members of Parliament, pending a final determination of a suit filed by Honourable Alexander Afenyo Markin.

    By Article 102 of the Constitution, 1992, and Order 64(1) of the Standing Orders of Parliament, I note that we currently have a quorum to transact business, but not to take decisions. I want to read the said Article 102 of the Constitution.

    It reads: ‘A quorum of Parliament, apart from the person presiding, shall be one-third of all the Members of Parliament.’ As presently constituted, the number is far above one-third of the Members of Parliament. But by Article 104, the numbers are not sufficient for us to take decisions, and I will quote Article 104. Article 104(1) says: ‘Except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, matters in Parliament shall be determined by the vote of the majority of members present and voting, with at least half of all the Members of Parliament present.’ Honourable members, we do not have at least half of all the Members of Parliament present.

    Consequently, in view of the current circumstances, the fact that there is a question on the composition and constitution of Parliament, and having regard to the public interest and the exigencies of the state of affairs in Parliament, I will proceed to, in accordance with Standing Order 59, adjourn the House indefinitely. That is sine die. I want to refer to Standing Order 59(1).

    It says: ‘The Speaker may, in consultation with leadership, suspend a meeting of the House indefinitely or for a period determined by the Speaker, having regard to the public interest and the exigencies of the state of affairs in the country.’ Honourable members, I have consulted leadership, and I am exercising my discretion to suspend a meeting of the House indefinitely. The House is accordingly adjourned sine die.

  • Bagbin instructs lawyers to file for a stay of Supreme Court’s order

    Bagbin instructs lawyers to file for a stay of Supreme Court’s order


    Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin has demanded that his lawyers seek legal action to temporarily suspend the Supreme Court’s recent declaring four parliamentary seats not vacant, this is according to a JoyNews report.

    Speaker Alban Bagbin had declared four parliamentary seats vacant in accordance with Article 97(g) and (h) of the 1992 Constitution. 

    This provision stipulates that any Member of Parliament (MP) who intends to run as an independent candidate or contest for a different party in the upcoming 2024 elections must vacate their seat.

    The affected MPs were Cynthia Morrison, Kwadjo Asante, Andrew Amoako Asiamah, and Peter Kwakye Ackah. The Supreme Court’s suspension delays any immediate actions until the case is fully resolved.

    However, the Supreme Court instructed Bagbin to halt his ruling after an application from New Patriotic Party (NPP) MPs challenged the Speaker’s ruling. The court, led by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, issued a stay of execution, halting the enforcement of Bagbin’s ruling until further legal proceedings take place.

  • CDD cautions Bagbin to comply with Supreme Court ruling on MPs vacant seat

    CDD cautions Bagbin to comply with Supreme Court ruling on MPs vacant seat

    Ghana Center for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana) has called on Parliament, including Speaker Alban Bagbin, to strictly adhere to the Supreme Court’s recent rulings regarding the status of four contested parliamentary seats.

    This appeal follows the Court’s stay on the Speaker’s earlier declaration of those seats as vacant, which arose after Minority Leader Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson invoked constitutional provisions regarding MPs who change their political affiliations.

    In its statement, CDD-Ghana acknowledged the legal dispute triggered by the Speaker’s actions and the Majority Leader’s petition to the Supreme Court, which resulted in a temporary halt to the Speaker’s decision.

    The Center emphasized the importance of Parliament cooperating fully with the judiciary to ensure that the rule of law is respected, particularly as the 2024 elections approach. It warned that any non-compliance with the Court’s directives could risk destabilising the political landscape.

    CDD-Ghana further urged Parliament to file all necessary legal documents within the Court’s specified deadlines and stressed the need for all parties to act with responsibility and respect for Ghana’s constitutional framework.

    While Parliament retains the right to seek a review of the Court’s decision, the Center underscored that adherence to the Court’s orders is crucial for maintaining political stability and upholding democratic principles.

    Below is the full statement by CDD-Ghana

    The Ghana Centre for Democratic Development (CDD-Ghana) has closely monitored recent developments in Parliament since October 15, 2024, when the Minority Leader, Hon. Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson, invoked Article 97(1)(g) of the 1992 Constitution to raise concerns about the presumed vacation of four (4) parliamentary seats.

    The Centre equally followed the Speaker of Parliament’s subsequent declaration on October 17, 2024, that vacancies had indeed occurred concerning the seats of those four (4) MPs—two (2) from the NPP, one from the NDC, and one independent.

    The Centre has also followed, with keen interest, Majority Leader Hon. Alexander Afenyo-Markin’s application to the Supreme Court challenging the Speaker’s authority to declare the vacancies and the Court’s subsequent intervention on October 18, 2024, staying the Speaker’s ruling and directing Parliament to allow the affected MPs to continue with the performance of their duties until the case is fully determined.

    We have taken due notice of the instruction given to the Speaker and the Attorney General to file their statements of case within seven (7) days of service, followed by a joint memorandum of issues for hearing.

    CDD-Ghana acknowledges the diversity of views in the public discourse surrounding this issue, particularly the legal opinions regarding both the Speaker’s actions and the Supreme Court’s intervention. Without a doubt, this situation presents a novel challenge to Ghana’s constitutional practice. It requires careful and sensitive handling to prevent the onset of constitutional and political turmoil, particularly as the country approaches the 2024 general elections.

    The Center strongly urges all Members of Parliament, political parties, the Executive, and the media to act with maximum restraint, a sense of responsibility, and respect for the letter and spirit of the constitutional principles and processes that underpin Ghana’s democracy.

    It implores all stakeholders to prioritise the preservation of the nation’s peace and stability and work diligently to avoid a recurrence of the regrettable scenes witnessed during the Speaker’s election on January 7, 2021.

    To deescalate the current tension and uphold the rule of law, CDD-Ghana encourages the Speaker and Parliament to fully comply with the Supreme Court’s directions, notwithstanding disagreements with the ruling. The timely filing of the required legal documents will ensure the case proceeds swiftly and help provide clarity and resolution. The Speaker and Parliament also retain the option to seek a review of the Court’s decision, should it find it necessary.

    Looking ahead, CDD-Ghana calls for a deep reflection on the relevant constitutional provisions governing parliamentary seats, especially during election years. It is vital to ensure that remedies are available for affected individuals and parties without plunging the nation into legal or political uncertainty.

    Additionally, CDD-Ghana believes that all outstanding cases seeking to disqualify any candidate from the upcoming elections should be resolved expeditiously. This will ensure that no candidate is unfairly deprived of their rights or opportunity to contest, maintaining fairness in the electoral process.

    In the spirit of national unity, we urge all Ghanaians to remain calm, respect the judicial process, and continue to uphold peace as we collectively safeguard Ghana’s democracy.

  • Allow Supreme Court to come to a firm determination on Speaker’s ruling – Afenyo-Markin

    Allow Supreme Court to come to a firm determination on Speaker’s ruling – Afenyo-Markin

    The MP for Efutu, Alexander Kwamina Afenyo-Markin, has urged that the Supreme Court should be given the space to resolve the case regarding the Speaker of Parliament’s recent declaration of four parliamentary seats as vacant.

    His remarks were made during a forum organized by Asaase Radio, where he stressed the urgency for a timely verdict, citing growing concerns over speculation related to Article 97(3) of the Constitution.

    “The court must expedite its actions to achieve a swift determination on this matter. These are serious constitutional issues, and we cannot let them linger. There’s a lot of speculation and varying opinions surrounding Article 97(3). It’s crucial for the Supreme Court to deliver a definitive ruling on this issue once and for all. We must prioritize legal clarity over political debates,” he stated.

    On October 17, 2024, Speaker Alban Bagbin declared the parliamentary seats for Amenfi Central, Fomena, Suhum, and Agona West vacant. This announcement followed a motion from Minority Leader Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson, invoking constitutional provisions that mandate MPs who change political parties or run as independents to forfeit their seats.

    However, the Supreme Court intervened on October 18, 2024, suspending Bagbin’s ruling by granting a stay of execution.

  • I am confident Supreme Court will right the wrong – Bernard Mornah replies High Court

    I am confident Supreme Court will right the wrong – Bernard Mornah replies High Court

    The flagbearer for the People’s National Convention (PNC), Bernard Mornah, has declared his intention to take his case to the Supreme Court after the High Court dismissed his lawsuit challenging the Electoral Commission’s (EC) disqualification of his candidacy in the 2024 presidential election.

    In a media briefing on Monday, October 21, following the court’s ruling, Mornah contended that the Electoral Commission made an error in disqualifying him and ten other candidates.

    He expressed strong belief in the legitimacy of his claims and highlighted the necessity for a higher court to reassess the situation.

    Mr Mornah also revealed that he has already briefed his legal team about his plans to seek further interpretation from the Supreme Court.

    “The EC made mistakes on their own forms and we are not allowed to make mistakes. The judge did not look at that and that defies ordinary thinking. What is the error that they are talking about? Is it a data entry error that they are talking about, is it an error of composition and how come those errors were not brought to court?

    “The judge did not look at the issues that were brought before it and I have already instructed my lawyers that this case is not ending here and we will go to the Supreme Court and my lawyers say that they will quickly study the case,” he added.

  • Who holds the majority? All eyes on parliament tomorrow as NDC vows to defy SC

    Who holds the majority? All eyes on parliament tomorrow as NDC vows to defy SC

    The National Democratic Congress (NDC), has boldly declared itself the new parliamentary majority, defying a recent Supreme Court order that stayed the Speaker of Parliament’s ruling on vacant seats.

    The declaration, made at a press conference, marks a significant escalation in the ongoing power struggle within Ghana’s legislature, as the NDC asserts its claim to majority control.

    “The NPP group in Parliament are now the minority caucus as defined by the relevant sections of Order 6 in the standing orders of Parliament. The minority means members of the party or parties that have the second-largest number of seats in Parliament. Honourable colleagues, the NDC MPs now constitute the majority caucus in line with the standing orders of Ghana’s Parliament,” the NDC leadership stated emphatically during the press briefing.

    The NDC’s position comes in response to the Speaker’s controversial decision to declare four parliamentary seats vacant—a move that temporarily tipped the balance of power in their favour. However, the Supreme Court’s stay of execution, issued last week, halted the Speaker’s ruling and effectively nullified the NDC’s brief majority status pending further legal deliberation.

    Despite this, the NDC remains adamant. “We will jealously protect our new majority status and will not bow, retreat, nor surrender our lawfully earned status. Nothing, absolutely nothing will change this position,” the party declared. They further argued that Parliament’s business must proceed independently, warning that any interference with its processes would be “unlawful, unacceptable, and shall be resisted.”

    The party’s defiance has heightened political tensions ahead of Parliament’s next session, scheduled for Tuesday, October 22, 2024. As the two main political parties—NDC and the New Patriotic Party (NPP)—jostle for control, the stakes could not be higher.

    The NDC’s bold stance has drawn mixed reactions. Dr. Dominic Ayine, the former Deputy Attorney General, welcomed the opportunity for the NDC to take legislative action once Parliament reconvenes. Speaking to Citi FM, Dr. Ayine said, “We will start implementing our manifesto on Tuesday, including repealing obnoxious pieces of legislation like the e-Levy and other taxes.” He also underscored that parliamentary majorities are determined by numerical strength, which he claimed now favours the NDC.

    Dr. Ayine and other NDC figures have criticized the Supreme Court’s stay, calling it premature and outside the bounds of judicial oversight. “The Supreme Court in its haste to assert its authority grossly erred,” Ayine remarked. “There was no appeal before any court of competent jurisdiction for there to have been a stay of execution.”

    On the other side, Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin expressed satisfaction with the Supreme Court’s decision and called on Parliament to respect the legal process. “The court has determined the matter, and we expect all parties, including the Speaker, to respect the law,” he said, reaffirming the NPP’s confidence in the judiciary’s intervention.

    Legal and Political Ramifications

    The NDC’s defiance of the Supreme Court ruling raises important constitutional questions about the separation of powers in Ghana. Legal analysts have expressed concern over the implications of the NDC’s move, as it may set a precedent for future disputes between the legislative and judicial branches.

    The ongoing legal battle centres on the interpretation of constitutional provisions regarding parliamentary vacancies and majority status. The Supreme Court’s final ruling could not only affect the current balance of power but also redefine the role of the judiciary in parliamentary affairs.

    Political Context Ahead of December Elections

    This latest confrontation comes at a critical time, with general elections just months away in December 2024. Both the NDC and NPP are seeking to solidify their positions as they head into the campaign season, and the fight for control of Parliament is becoming a key issue. The NDC’s declaration as the majority party, despite the legal uncertainty, could energize its base and bolster its position in the run-up to the elections.

    However, political commentators have warned that the NDC’s defiance of the court order is a risky strategy. While it may rally party loyalists, it also opens the party up to criticism for undermining the judiciary, which could affect its standing with swing voters.

    As the legal and political battles continue, the question of which party holds the majority in Parliament remains unresolved, with both the NDC and the New Patriotic Party (NPP) claiming control. The outcome of this power struggle will likely have significant implications for the governance of the country in the lead-up to the 2024 general elections.

    The Supreme Court has ordered the Speaker and Attorney General to file their statements of case within seven days, indicating that this battle is far from over. In the meantime, Ghana’s political landscape remains fraught with uncertainty as both parties vie for supremacy in Parliament and beyond.

  • Does the Supreme Court consider public opinion in its activities? – Hannah Tetteh asks

    Does the Supreme Court consider public opinion in its activities? – Hannah Tetteh asks

    Former Foreign Affairs Minister Hanna Tetteh has questioned the extent to which public opinion influences the decisions of Ghana’s Supreme Court, particularly in high-stakes political cases.

    In a recent Facebook post, she reflected on whether the Court considers the broader societal context when delivering rulings, such as its recent ex-parte decision that challenged the Speaker of Parliament’s declaration of vacant seats.

    Tetteh acknowledged the judiciary’s vital role in upholding the law impartially, yet she suggested that judicial decisions do not exist in isolation.

    She highlighted that the Court operates within the larger framework of Ghanaian society, which encompasses not only the parties directly involved but also key stakeholders like businesses, investors, unions, religious leaders, civil society, and the general public.

    “Do they listen to public commentary and reflect on the implications of their decisions and how these are received by the wider society?” she asks, noting that while the court’s primary responsibility is to uphold the law, the broader social, economic, and political environment cannot be ignored.

    Hanna Tetteh notes that as Ghana nears another election cycle, the political climate is becoming increasingly volatile, raising the stakes for maintaining peace and security.

    In her view, this highly partisan atmosphere makes the judiciary’s role even more critical.

    She emphasises that the Court’s rulings can impact not only legal outcomes but also the broader balance of power and stability in the country.

    Tetteh contends that while the judiciary must maintain its independence and resist external pressures, its decisions inevitably carry significant implications for society as a whole.

    “In these fragile times, we need a judiciary that understands its pivotal role in ensuring not only that the laws are applied justly, but that democracy not only survives but thrives,” she concludes.

    When the Justices of the Supreme Court take their decisions or make orders in whatever circumstances, not just in the context of the recent ex-parte decision against the Speaker’s ruling, do they listen to the public commentary and reflect on their decision, its implications and how it has been received not only by the parties to the particular suit or in a case with political undertones the legal profession, the businesses/investor community, the diplomatic community, religious actors, the unions, civil society and other key social actors?.

  • NDC challenges Supreme Court’s stay of execution amid heated parliamentary struggle

    NDC challenges Supreme Court’s stay of execution amid heated parliamentary struggle

    In a bold political confrontation, the National Democratic Congress (NDC) has declared itself the new parliamentary majority, directly defying a Supreme Court order that stayed the Speaker of Parliament’s ruling which had temporarily handed the party the majority.

    The declaration was made during a press conference, where the NDC leadership unequivocally stated their position: “We are the new majority, we shall not bow or surrender, nothing will stop it.”

    The NDC’s claims follow the Speaker’s controversial decision to declare four parliamentary seats vacant. This decision briefly tipped the scales in favor of the NDC, giving them majority control of the chamber.

    However, the Supreme Court’s recent stay of execution has effectively reversed this, nullifying the Speaker’s ruling for the time being while the Court deliberates on a substantive case involving the interpretation of constitutional provisions regarding parliamentary vacancies.

    NDC Pushes Back

    Despite the Supreme Court’s intervention, the NDC leadership has vowed to press forward with their claim. They argue that the Speaker’s ruling was in line with parliamentary procedures, and the Supreme Court’s stay, in their view, undermines the legislative branch’s independence.

    The NDC’s strong stance, articulated in their declaration that “nothing will stop it,” signals the party’s unwillingness to retreat from its newly claimed position in Parliament, regardless of legal setbacks.

    This latest development intensifies the already competitive political landscape as Ghana inches closer to the December elections. Both the NDC and the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP) have fought hard to control the legislative agenda, with each party vying for dominance ahead of the polls.

    Legal and Political Ramifications

    The NDC’s defiance of the Supreme Court’s stay of execution has raised concerns about the separation of powers in Ghana’s democratic system. Legal analysts are watching closely, as the case could set a significant precedent for how parliamentary vacancies and majority statuses are determined moving forward. The ruling from the Supreme Court could have far-reaching consequences for the balance of power in Parliament and potentially impact future interpretations of the constitution.

    Additionally, this defiance could exacerbate the already tense rivalry between the NDC and NPP, as both parties prepare for a crucial election cycle. The NDC’s declaration has not only created a political stir but has also opened up a broader conversation about the judiciary’s role in political processes and the potential for conflict between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.

    Political Context Ahead of December Elections

    As Ghana nears its next general elections, the battle for control in Parliament is becoming a central issue. Both the NDC and NPP are gearing up for a heated contest, and this latest dispute over parliamentary majority status will likely play a prominent role in campaign rhetoric. With only a few months left until the elections, the NDC’s declaration may energize their base, positioning themselves as fighters against what they perceive as judicial overreach.

    Political commentators have noted that the NDC’s actions represent a calculated risk. While defying the court order could galvanize support from party loyalists, it also exposes the party to legal repercussions that could harm their reputation among swing voters.

    The National Democratic Congress’s bold declaration as the “new majority” represents a significant moment in Ghana’s political landscape, adding another layer of complexity to the country’s parliamentary and electoral struggles.

    As the Supreme Court continues to deliberate on the substantive case, the NDC’s resistance highlights the high stakes involved in the contest for parliamentary power. As both parties prepare for December’s elections, the outcome of this legal and political confrontation could have a lasting impact on Ghana’s democratic system.

    With tensions mounting, all eyes will be on the Supreme Court’s final ruling and its implications for the future of parliamentary democracy in Ghana.

  • Ayariga slams Supreme Court’s ruling on Speaker’s declaration of seats vacant

    Ayariga slams Supreme Court’s ruling on Speaker’s declaration of seats vacant

    Bawku Central MP Mahama Ayariga has voiced his disapproval of the Supreme Court’s decision to halt Speaker Alban Bagbin’s ruling, which had declared four parliamentary seats vacant.

    Ayariga argued that this action represents an unconstitutional overreach by the judiciary into parliamentary matters, thereby violating the separation of powers between the two branches of government.

    In a discussion on Eyewitness News on October 18, Ayariga asserted that the Supreme Court had overstepped its authority and that its ruling infringes on Parliament’s independence.

    He emphasized that the judiciary’s interference undermines the clear constitutional limits designed to protect the autonomy of the legislative body.

    Furthermore, Ayariga questioned the legality of the Court’s intervention, stressing the importance of each branch of government respecting its constitutional boundaries.

    “What can happen is that when parliament goes through its proper processes and exercises its power, if you think that the act contravenes the constitution, you can go to the Supreme Court and seek a declaration to that effect.

    “What happened today is not a declaration of whether the matter that occurred in parliament yesterday was in contravention of the constitution. It is an unconstitutional interference with the work of parliament by suspending the decision of parliament.

    “The constitution doesn’t say that they have the power of injunction. Rather, the constitution says that they make a declaration,” he stated.

    Ahead of the Speaker’s ruling on Thursday, Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin took urgent legal action, filing with the Supreme Court on Tuesday, October 15, to seek clarification on the status of the four MPs, who had decided to contest the upcoming December 2024 elections either as members of the NPP or as independent candidates.

    On Friday, Afenyo-Markin also filed for a stay of execution of the Speaker’s ruling.

    In response, the Supreme Court’s stay order temporarily suspends any actions related to the ruling, including the declaration of the seats as vacant.

    This legal intervention ensures that the four MPs will retain their positions in Parliament until the court delivers a final verdict. It is also expected to maintain the current composition of Parliament, allowing for uninterrupted legislative duties.

  • Full text: Supreme Court temporarily overturns Speaker’s ruling on declaring 4 seats vacant

    Full text: Supreme Court temporarily overturns Speaker’s ruling on declaring 4 seats vacant

    Supreme Court of Ghana, on October 18, 2024, temporarily suspended a ruling by Speaker Alban Bagbin that had declared four parliamentary seats vacant.

    This decision came after an application from New Patriotic Party (NPP) MPs challenged the Speaker’s ruling.

    The court, led by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, issued a stay of execution, halting the enforcement of Bagbin’s ruling until further legal proceedings take place.

    The Speaker’s original decision, based on Article 97(g) and (h) of the 1992 Constitution, claimed that the MPs had vacated their seats by running as independents or for different parties in the upcoming 2024 elections.

    The affected MPs were Cynthia Morrison, Kwadjo Asante, Andrew Amoako Asiamah, and Peter Kwakye Ackah. The Supreme Court’s suspension delays any immediate actions until the case is fully resolved.

    Afenyo-Markin v Speaker & AGDownload
  • We won’t back down, we will forever be the Majority – NPP MPs

    We won’t back down, we will forever be the Majority – NPP MPs

    The Majority in Parliament has expressed their approval of the Supreme Court’s recent decision, which enables four MPs whose seats were previously declared vacant by the Speaker to continue representing their constituencies and fulfilling their official duties.

    In a post shared on the X page of Citi FM on October 19, 2024, the MPs proclaimed, “We are the majority, and we will remain the majority! NPP MPs passionately declare as they exit the Supreme Court after the court halted the execution of the Speaker’s ruling on four vacant seats.”

    This statement was made as they exited the Supreme Court, where the court had halted the enforcement of the Speaker’s ruling regarding the four vacant seats.

    A video accompanying the post shows the NPP caucus exiting the court premises in high spirits.

    This ruling follows the Supreme Court’s issuance of a stay on Speaker Alban Bagbin’s earlier decision, which had declared the seats of Cynthia Morrison (Agona West), Kwadjo Asante (Suhum), Peter Kwakye Ackah (Amenfi Central), and Andrew Asiamah (Fomena) vacant.

    With this directive, the MPs can fully represent their constituents and carry out their duties.

    The stay of execution was requested by New Patriotic Party (NPP) Members of Parliament, who sought the court’s intervention to prevent the implementation of a ruling that would have impacted three NPP members and one from the National Democratic Congress (NDC).

  • Speaker’s ruling declaring 4 parliamentary seats vacant suspended by Supreme Court

    Speaker’s ruling declaring 4 parliamentary seats vacant suspended by Supreme Court

    The apex court of Ghana has issued a stay of execution on the ruling by the Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, which declared the seats of four Members of Parliament (MPs) vacant.

    Speaker Bagbin on Thursday, October 17, declared vacant the seats occupied by Cynthia Morrison (Agona West), Kojo Asante (Suhum), Andrew Asiamah (Fomena), who sided with the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and Peter Kwakye Ackah (Amenfi Central), who run on the ticket of the National Democratic Congress (NDC) during the 2020 elections.

    These individuals have filed to contest as independent candidates in the upcoming December elections. 

    In his ruling, Speaker Alban Bagbin, after extensive reading, emphasized that if Article 97 (1)(g) of the 1992 Constitution were meant to apply only to a future parliament, it would have been redundant, as the MPs in question would have already completed their current parliamentary term.

    The Speaker further clarified that the previous instance where former Speaker Prof. Mike Oquaye expelled the Fomena MP from Parliament based on the NPP’s notification of the MP’s decision to go independent, was not binding on him or any other future Speaker.

    Bagbin concluded that since the notice of polls had officially confirmed that the four MPs were contesting as independent candidates, they no longer had the right to retain their seats in the current parliament. Consequently, he declared their seats vacant.

    Their removal was spearheaded by former Minority Leader Haruna Iddrisu, who invoked Article 97 (1)(g) of the Constitution, which mandates that MPs who contest as independent candidates must vacate their seats.

    Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin responded to the matter by filing a legal challenge at the Supreme Court to prevent the Minority’s bid. Afenyo-Markin contested the Speaker’s ruling, however, Ato Forson lauded the Speaker “for standing firm.”

    In application of the Speaker’s declaration, Ato Forson is now the Majority Leader whereas Afenyo-Markin is the Minority Leader. Presently, Andrew Asiamah ceases to be the Second Deputy Speaker in Parliament after losing the Fomena seat.

    Prior to the ruling, the National Democratic Congress (NDC) held 137 seats, while the NPP had 138. With the successful motion, the NDC now has a parliamentary majority with 136 seats while the NPP has 135 seats.

    Meanwhile, the NPP Members of Parliament have vowed not to step into the chamber until the matter before the Supreme Court is addressed.

    The Supreme Court’s stay order is expected to delay any implementation of the ruling and maintain the current composition of Parliament until the final determination of the matter.

  • Internal happenings in Parliament ruled by Speaker not Supreme Court – Dean of UPSA Law School

    Internal happenings in Parliament ruled by Speaker not Supreme Court – Dean of UPSA Law School

    The Dean of the University of Professional Studies, Accra (UPSA) Law School, Ernest Kofi Abotsi, has clarified that the Supreme Court may not have the authority to override decisions made by the Speaker of Parliament on matters within the Speaker’s jurisdiction.

    Speaking on Joy FM’s Super Morning Show, Prof. Abotsi emphasized that the Speaker has the constitutional mandate to make determinations concerning internal parliamentary procedures, and that the Supreme Court’s role is restricted to assessing whether or not the Speaker has acted within his legal powers.

    “The person who has the authority to make such factual determination is the Speaker. So it may not even lie in the mouth of the Supreme Court to second guess the Speaker,” he explained. “This is because this constitutes an internal happening in Parliament of which the Speaker would have to make those determinations over a House he presides,” Prof. Abotsi told co-host Kojo Yankson on Friday.

    His comments follow a recent injunction application filed by Minority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin at the Supreme Court. Afenyo-Markin sought to halt an action by Tamale South MP, Haruna Iddrisu, over the status of four Members of Parliament. However, despite the legal challenge, Speaker Alban Bagbin declared the seats of these MPs vacant on Thursday, citing their defection to contest as Independent candidates in the upcoming election.

    Afenyo-Markin has since announced that the New Patriotic Party (NPP) Caucus will boycott parliamentary proceedings until the Supreme Court delivers a ruling on the matter.

    Prof. Abotsi further noted that the apex court cannot interfere in routine parliamentary procedures when the Speaker is acting within his powers. “What the Supreme Court can do is to question whether or not the circumstances for the exercise of the power have reason or whether or not he has exceeded his Speakership powers,” he clarified.

    Speaker Bagbin’s ruling, which affected MPs Cynthia Morrison (Agona West), Kwadjo Asante (Suhum), Peter Kwakye Ackah (Amenfi Central), and Andrew Asiamah (Fomena), has caused a shift in parliamentary power. The opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC) now holds 136 seats compared to the NPP’s 135, making the NDC the majority caucus in Parliament

  • Visually impaired lawyer to sue state institutions over failure to implement Disability Act

    Visually impaired lawyer to sue state institutions over failure to implement Disability Act

    Newly enrolled lawyer, Mattah Tobias Dennis Xorse Esq., has announced his intention to sue state institutions for failing to fully implement the Persons With Disability Act, 2006 (Act 715).

    The visually impaired lawyer, who was called to the Bar last Friday, expressed frustration over the lack of accessibility provisions for persons with disabilities (PwDs) in Ghana and vowed to take legal action to address these shortcomings.

    “If we are paying the same school fees as our colleagues, who have access to books and libraries, then we should be given the same services,” Xorse stated. “We all sit for the same exams, yet we aren’t considered because we lack the necessary facilities. No special provisions were made for me, and if I had failed any of my papers, I wouldn’t be here today.” He emphasized that in other parts of the world, institutions are designed to be inclusive, ensuring equal opportunities for all, but that is not the case in the schools he attended.

    On October 11, 2024, a total of 777 lawyers were enrolled as Barristers and Solicitors of the Supreme Court of Ghana at a ceremony held at the Accra International Conference Centre (AICC).

    Xorse made it clear that his focus is on ensuring that Ghana becomes more inclusive, especially for persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups.

    “It’s my aim to see that PwDs get their fair share of the national cake,” he said, adding that once he obtains his full legal license, he will begin taking on state institutions that fail to comply with the law.

    His comments come at a time when PwDs in Ghana have long called for equality in terms of access to opportunities and infrastructure that allow them to enjoy the same services as the average Ghanaian.

    According to the 2021 Population and Housing Census, persons with disabilities constitute 8% of Ghana’s population, amounting to 2,098,138 individuals. Although Ghana has signed and ratified various international agreements, including the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, PwDs still face significant discrimination and challenges in accessing education, healthcare, transportation, and other basic services.

    The Persons With Disability Act, 2006 (Act 715), mandates that public spaces and institutions must be made accessible to PwDs. It also requires the Minister of Education to designate schools in each region equipped to cater to PwDs and ensures that their needs are taken into account in the design of transportation networks.

    Despite progress made by civil society organizations and government efforts, including initiatives like the National Council for Persons with Disabilities and the 3% District Assembly Common Fund allocation for PwDs, much remains to be done to improve the lives of PwDs in Ghana.

    In the lead-up to the 2024 general elections, both the New Patriotic Party (NPP) and the National Democratic Congress (NDC) have pledged to support PwDs. Former President John Dramani Mahama, the NDC’s presidential candidate, has promised free tertiary education for all PwDs if elected, while the NPP’s Dr. Mahamudu Bawumia has made a similar commitment. Both candidates have also pledged to create funds to assist PwDs in accessing higher education.

    Despite these promises, the implementation of existing laws remains a significant challenge, and it is against this backdrop that Dennis Xorse plans to hold state institutions accountable for their inaction.

  • Supporters of Anti-Gay Bill to protest at Supreme Court on Oct 8

    Supporters of Anti-Gay Bill to protest at Supreme Court on Oct 8

    The sponsors of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, commonly referred to as the Anti-Gay Bill, have outlined plans for a peaceful protest march to the Supreme Court.

    This action is intended to express their dissatisfaction with the prolonged delay in resolving a case related to the bill.

    According to a statement, the bill’s supporters will gather at Kwame Nkrumah Circle in Accra on Tuesday, October 8, 2024, before marching to the Supreme Court to present a petition to Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame and Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo.

    The protest, which aims to push for the swift passage of the bill that has been stalled since Parliament passed it on February 28, 2024, will involve various religious groups and key stakeholders.

    Originally scheduled two months ago, the march is part of broader efforts to expedite the process.

    This decision to protest follows the Supreme Court’s ruling on July 17, 2024, which deferred judgment on anti-gay cases until all related legal matters are resolved. The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill seeks to criminalize LGBTQ+ activities in Ghana.

    As part of the protest, the sponsors intend to petition Chief Justice Torkonoo to set a date for the final ruling, underscoring the ongoing debate surrounding LGBTQ+ rights in the country.

  • Judicial Service says Anti-LGBT+ cases at Supreme Court not yet ready for hearing

    Judicial Service says Anti-LGBT+ cases at Supreme Court not yet ready for hearing

    Judicial Service of Ghana has announced that the cases challenging the Promotion of Human Sexual Rights and the Ghanaian Family Values Bill (commonly referred to as the Anti-LGBT+ Bill) are not yet scheduled for hearing by the Supreme Court.

    The delay is attributed to incomplete procedural steps by the involved parties.

    According to a statement from the Communications Department of the Judicial Service, the parties must first file their respective statements of case and reach an agreement on a joint memorandum of issues before the cases can proceed to court.

    “From the above, it is clear that the parties have not completed their work, and therefore, the cases are not ready for hearing,” the statement said.

    Recent reports have prompted an update regarding the bill’s promoters, who are now planning demonstrations against the Chief Justice and the Judicial Service.

    They accuse the judiciary of causing delays in their cases.

    On July 17, 2024, a Supreme Court panel led by Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo postponed rulings on two interlocutory injunctions brought by Richard Dela Sky and Dr. Amanda Odoi, awaiting the final resolution of the main issues at hand.

    Discontent has surfaced among the bill’s supporters, including Samuel Nartey George, MP for Ningo-Prampram, who are dissatisfied with the current pace of the proceedings and have announced intentions to protest against the Chief Justice and the judicial system.

    In response, the Judicial Service has stated that the necessary preparations for the cases are still incomplete, thus delaying their readiness for hearing.

    “This case (Richard Dela Sky vs. Parliament and Attorney General) was started with a writ filed on March 5, 2024. As of July 31, 2024, neither Parliament nor the Attorney General had filed a defence to the plaintiff’s action in the form of their statements of case.”

    Similarly, in Dr. Amanda Odoi’s case, the statement said, “The 1st defendant (the Parliament) filed its statement of case on March 14, 2024. The 2nd defendant (the Attorney General) has not filed a statement of case.”

    The Judicial Service assured the public that registries of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, and High Courts are open throughout legal vacations to receive all processes due to be filed.

    “The general public is further assured of the Judiciary’s readiness to adjudicate any matter that is ripe for hearing.”

  • Ghanaian laws exclude foreign homosexuality regulations – Supreme Court

    Ghanaian laws exclude foreign homosexuality regulations – Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that Ghana’s laws on unnatural carnal knowledge remain valid, despite some countries legalizing homosexuality.

    The court emphasized that Ghana should not adopt foreign laws that conflict with its values and constitution.

    In its ruling, the court upheld the constitutionality of Section 104 (1) (b) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), which criminalizes unnatural carnal knowledge. It ruled that any sexual intercourse not involving penetration of a penis into a woman’s vagina remains illegal under this section.

    The court’s decision came after Dr. Prince Obiri-Korang challenged the law, arguing it was unconstitutional and violated privacy rights. Dr. Obiri-Korang claimed that the law discriminates against homosexuals and infringes on their rights as per Articles 18(2) and 14(1) of the 1992 Constitution.

    Justice Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu authored the unanimous decision, supported by a seven-member panel. The court found that the plaintiff’s arguments were based largely on international laws, which could not be applied in Ghana.

    Justice Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi concurred, stating that Ghana should not feel pressured by international norms to legalize homosexuality.

    He highlighted that the 1992 Constitution upholds family and cultural values, which oppose homosexuality. Justice Kulendi questioned how such practices could align with constitutional provisions aimed at protecting family units and promoting societal values.

    The court also rejected the claim that Section 104 (1) (b) infringes on privacy rights. It argued that privacy is not absolute and can be limited by considerations of public safety, morality, and national well-being.

  • Alien cultural values, ideas have no foundation in our legal system – Supreme Court

    Alien cultural values, ideas have no foundation in our legal system – Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court has firmly reiterated that foreign laws and cultural values, including the legalization of homosexuality in some countries, have no place in Ghana’s legal system.

    In its ruling upholding the criminalization of unnatural carnal knowledge, the apex court emphasized that Ghana’s laws are deeply rooted in the nation’s values, which should not be compromised by external influence or judicial decisions from other jurisdictions.

    The court declared that Section 104(1)(b) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), which criminalizes unnatural carnal knowledge, remains constitutional and in line with the 1992 Constitution.

    In its judgment, the court underscored that Ghana is under no obligation to adopt foreign laws that conflict with its legal principles and cultural ethos.

    “The law’s utility thus becomes waste, if it is just the transportation of alien cultural values and ideas which have no foundation at all with the peculiar social factors in our legal system,” the court asserted.

    The ruling reaffirms that any form of sexual intercourse that does not involve “penetration with a penis into a woman’s vagina” remains a crime under Section 104 of Act 29, including acts of sodomy and bestiality.

    The seven-member panel, led by Justice Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu, unanimously dismissed a suit filed by Dr. Prince Obiri-Korang, who sought to challenge the constitutionality of the law on the grounds that it violated rights to privacy and liberty. However, the court ruled that his arguments, largely based on foreign laws, could not be applied in Ghana.

    Justice Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi, concurring with the decision, noted that peer pressure from other countries should not dictate Ghana’s stance on homosexuality. He argued that the 1992 Constitution upholds family and cultural values, which are at odds with practices such as homosexuality.

    “Whilst the constitutions and laws of other nations may have expressly legalized homosexuality… Ghana as a nation, and for that matter this Court, cannot by ‘peer pressure’ be cajoled into adopting a similar stance,” Justice Kulendi emphasized.

    Justice Kulendi also highlighted the constitutional mandate to protect the family as the fundamental unit of society, pointing out that legalizing homosexuality would threaten traditional modes of family creation and societal stability. He argued that the Constitution’s recognition of family values renders the practice of homosexuality unconstitutional.

    The court further rejected the plaintiff’s argument regarding the violation of privacy rights, asserting that the right to privacy is not absolute and can be limited by concerns for public safety, morality, and the well-being of the country.

    “The right to privacy… is subject to certain restrictions such as public safety, economic well-being of the country, and public morality,” the court stated.

    With this ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed Ghana’s commitment to preserving its legal and cultural identity while rejecting external pressures to alter its stance on unnatural carnal knowledge.

  • Supreme Court can’t be coerced into accepting homosexual rights – Justice Yonni Kulendi

    Supreme Court can’t be coerced into accepting homosexual rights – Justice Yonni Kulendi

    Justice Yonni Kulendi of the Supreme Court of Ghana has stated that the court will not be influenced by external pressures to adopt practices such as homosexuality, which are not in line with Ghanaian norms.

    In his concurring opinion, he emphasized that Ghana’s Constitution holds supreme authority and is not subject to the influence of other nations’ laws or practices.

    On July 24, 2024, the Supreme Court, led by Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, unanimously rejected a petition filed by law lecturer Dr. Obiri-Korang challenging the constitutionality of laws criminalizing homosexuality.

    The seven-member panel, which included Justices Avril Lovelace-Johnson, Omoro Amadu Tanko, Ernest Gaewu, Yaw Darko Asare, and Agyei-Frimpong, upheld that Section 104(1)(D) of Act 29 is not discriminatory and does not infringe on individual privacy, whether for homosexuals or other sexual orientations involving unnatural carnal knowledge.

    The court affirmed that the criminalization of unnatural carnal knowledge under Section 104(1)(b) of the Criminal and Other Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29) is consistent with the 1992 Constitution.

    “Section 104(1)(D) of Act 29 is not discriminatory against homosexuals; neither does it infringe on the privacy of individuals, be they homosexuals or practitioners of other forms of sexual orientation which involve unnatural carnal knowledge however described.”

    As a result, the panel dismissed Dr. Obiri-Korang’s lawsuit in its entirety.

    “It is, therefore, not unconstitutional,” the panel said, and on that premise, dismissed the Plaintiff’s action in its entirety.

    On February 28, 2024, Ghana’s Parliament unanimously passed the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2021.

    The bill which is yet to be assented to by President Akufo-Addo to become law criminalises the mere identification as an LGBTQ+ community member and “related activities,” including same-sex relationships, the use of sex toys, and cross-dressing. 

    Presently, the content of the bill has not been made public as the President has been advised against receiving the bill from the Clerk of Parliament due to the legal action against the bill currently at the Supreme Court.

    Concurring Opinion

    Justice Yonni Kulendi, a member of the panel, in his concurring opinion, said, “whilst the constitutions and laws of other nations may have expressly legalized homosexuality, glorified gay marriages, and by way of affirmative actions, promulgated legislation to propagate, outdoor, evangelize, preach, and sell the notions of homosexuality to every fabric of those societies, Ghana as a nation, and for that matter this (Supreme) Court, cannot by ‘peer pressure’ be cajoled into adopting a similar stance.”

    “Our Constitution is sui generis and the only one of its kind. Thus, citizens who ply this Court must do more than merely cite and refer to the Constitution of other states as well as their case law to persuade us on what the law is or ought to be in Ghana.

    “Our duty as judges and the oath that we swore before assuming office was not to uphold the laws of other nations or their case law.

    “Our oath is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the Republic of Ghana. Thus, we shall neither engage in legislative drafting nor usurp the lawmaking powers of Parliament in order to substitute our wisdom for that of the lawmakers by superimposing foreign perceptions of propriety and/or normalcy on our laws and established social structures,” the Supreme Court judge said in a 57-page judgment released on August 13, 2024.

    “We must, therefore, as judges, avoid any extent of judicial activism that will mislead us into assuming the role of Parliament,” Justice Kulendi stated while pointing to the case of Republic v Fast Track High Court, Accra; Ex parte Daniels [2003-2004] SCLR 364 at p.370.

    Conclusion

    In his conclusion, he reiterated that, “in respect of the issue that was set down for determination in this suit, that Section 104(1) of Act 29, which criminalizes unnatural carnal knowledge, does not contravene the Constitution of the Republic of Ghana.

    “The Plaintiff’s conception of private morality as a ground to limit or expand the constitutional right to privacy lacks sufficient context in the nation’s constitutional architecture.

    “Indeed, it is fundamentally poles apart from Ghanaian family values. Our constitutional provisions derive their purpose and values from our traditions, customs, and culture,” Justice Yonni Kulendi said while dismissing the action in its entirety.

    Relief Sought

    Dr. Obiri-Korang, the Plaintiff, per his writ filed on August 26, 2024, specifically sought the following reliefs:

    a. A declaration that Section 104(1)(b) of the Criminal Offences Act (Act 29) 1960 is ultra vires Article 18(2) of the Constitution of Ghana in so far as the said section will lead to the unlawful and arbitrary interference of the privacy of all adult persons living in Ghana.

    b. A declaration that Section 104(1)(b) of the Criminal Offences Act of Ghana is ultra vires Article 17(2) of the Constitution of Ghana, in so far as the said section arbitrarily and unjustifiably discriminates against persons based on their sexual orientation.

    c. A declaration that Section 104(1)(b) of the Criminal Offences Act of Ghana is ultra vires Article 14(1) of the Constitution of Ghana, in so far as the said section arbitrarily deprives homosexuals of their liberty to select their intimate sexual partners and their right to engage in intimate sexual conduct without state interference.

  • It is not against the law to appoint a dual citizen to Supreme Court – Deputy A-G

    It is not against the law to appoint a dual citizen to Supreme Court – Deputy A-G

    The Deputy Attorney-General and Minister for Justice, Alfred Tuah-Yeboah, has stated that appointing a dual citizen to the Supreme Court does not breach Ghanaian laws.

    He explained that the Supreme Court has previously ruled on the Citizenship Act, permitting dual citizens to occupy significant positions.

    In an interview with JoyNews on Wednesday, August 13, the Deputy AG remarked that “It’s very clear that under our laws, you can be a dual citizen, but still be a judge of the Supreme Court. In April this year, a judgment was delivered to that effect. 

    “So the nominee who came yesterday is qualified under our laws, not to the fact that he owes a Canadian citizenship, but for the judgment in April, he would have qualified to be a Supreme Court judge in Ghana.” 

    His remarks follow criticism from Minority Leader Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson, who voiced strong opposition to the nomination of Professor Richard Frimpong Oppong, a dual citizen, for the Supreme Court position.

    Dr. Forson argued that dual citizens should not be eligible for high government roles, particularly as Supreme Court judges.

    During the vetting session on Tuesday, August 12, Dr. Forson, a member of the Parliamentary Appointments Committee, contended that Professor Oppong’s dual citizenship disqualifies him from the role. He insisted that Professor Oppong must renounce his foreign citizenship before his nomination can be endorsed.

    “The Constitution, in Article 156(1), is clear that you would have to take an oath of allegiance, and the same Supreme Court has equated allegiance to nationality,” Dr Forson stated.

    “In my view, you do not qualify, and I believe that you would need to renounce your citizenship to be eligible for the role of a Supreme Court judge.”

    When questioned about the assurance that the Supreme Court nominee will uphold justice if appointed, Mr. Tuah-Yeboah affirmed his confidence in Prof. Oppong’s capabilities.

    He noted that despite Prof. Oppong’s lack of practical legal experience, he possesses extensive knowledge and is well-equipped to fulfill the responsibilities of a judge effectively.

    “Yesterday you listened to him, watched him – an excellent professor. He knows his stuff, in fact, we were in the law school together, even though he’s one year behind me, and I know his worth. 

    “In terms of his ability to deliver as a judge, I can assure you he has every quality that any judge should possess in the dispensation of justice, and I trust him that he will do his job as a judge,” he added.

  • I do not support LGBTQI+ activities – Supreme Court nominee

    I do not support LGBTQI+ activities – Supreme Court nominee

    A nominee for the Supreme Court, Prof. Richard Frimpong Oppong, has strongly denied supporting LGBTQI+ rights in Ghana.

    During his appearance before Parliament’s Appointments Committee on Tuesday, Prof. Oppong addressed concerns raised by Minority Leader Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson.

    Dr. Forson referenced a confidential National Intelligence Bureau (NIB) report that suggested Prof. Oppong, known for his libertarian views, might advocate for LGBTQI+ issues if appointed to the bench.

    In response, Prof. Oppong firmly rejected the suggestion, stating that he does not support LGBTQI+ activities. He emphasized that the report’s assertions were inaccurate and did not represent his personal beliefs.

    “Absolutely wrong and I reject in the strongest possible terms wherever those views are coming from because as I said as an academic I have written about the subject from the perspective of my specialty. From the perspective of conflict of laws.

    “I said I have my wife here, I have my three daughters here, actually, they will be very surprised that anybody thinks that I am going to inflict LGBTQ on the country.”

    When Prof. Oppong was asked a similar question by Mahama Ayariga, the Member of Parliament (MP) for Bawku Central, he provided clarification, “I am a lawyer, I am not an anthropologist, I am not a sociologist…from a personal perspective I am married, my wife is here and I know whatever she is giving me is the best [power] for me.”

  • I won’t sabotage anti-gay bill due to my research on LGBTQ community – SC judge nominee

    I won’t sabotage anti-gay bill due to my research on LGBTQ community – SC judge nominee

    Supreme Court judge nominee, Professor Richard Frimpong Oppong, has dismissed concerns that his research on LGBTQ issues would lead him to undermine Ghana’s anti-LGBTQ bill if he is confirmed as a judge.

    Speaking before the Parliamentary Vetting Committee on Tuesday, August 13, 2024, Professor Oppong rejected the notion that he would be a “dangerous” addition to the bench due to his academic work.

    The concerns were raised by Rockson-Nelson Dafeamekpor, MP for South Dayi and a sponsor of the anti-LGBTQ bill. Referring to Professor Oppong’s research titled Foreign Same-Sex Marriages Before Commonwealth African Courts, Dafeamekpor suggested that the nominee might strike down the bill if he were to join the Supreme Court.

    “As a sponsor of the bill, I think you will be a danger when you get onto the bench in terms of our anti-LGBTQ activities. There is a confidential report that suggests that. And I am saying that when you get the opportunity, you will be striking down these laws because that is the justificational mandate of the Supreme Court,” Dafeamekpor stated.

    In response, Professor Oppong firmly denied these assertions. “I think I really reject the idea that if I get to the Supreme Court, I will be a danger to anything that you are talking about,” he responded. He emphasized that, if approved, his role as a judge would be to apply the laws of Ghana, irrespective of his academic research.

    Professor Oppong’s research had stirred controversy due to its examination of how African courts, including those in Ghana, Kenya, and Nigeria, might handle foreign same-sex marriages. In the abstract of his research, he acknowledged that same-sex relationships would likely violate the laws of most African countries, including Ghana. He noted that such unions are either explicitly prohibited or fall under legislation that can be interpreted to prohibit them.

    However, he also pointed out the challenges that arise when countries that do not recognize same-sex relationships are confronted with legal conflicts due to the growing global trend of institutionalizing same-sex marriages. He suggested that African courts might need to differentiate between cases seeking adversarial court procedures, like dividing marital property, and those attempting to legitimize a same-sex union.

    Despite the nuanced views presented in his research, Professor Oppong clarified that judges must apply the law impartially, without letting personal beliefs influence their judgments. When asked directly if he believed a man should be granted the right to marry another man, he answered unequivocally, “No.”

    Professor Oppong’s comments aimed to assure the committee that his academic work would not compromise his commitment to upholding Ghana’s laws, including the anti-LGBTQ bill, if he is confirmed as a Supreme Court judge.

    On February 28, 2024, Ghana’s Parliament unanimously passed the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, 2021.

    The bill which is yet to be assented to by President Akufo-Addo to become law criminalises the mere identification as an LGBTQ+ community member and “related activities,” including same-sex relationships, the use of sex toys, and cross-dressing. 

    Presently, the content of the bill has not been made public as the President has been advised against receiving the bill from the Clerk of Parliament due to the legal action against the bill currently at the Supreme Court.

  • A lawyer cannot serve as a judge – Supreme Court nominee

    A lawyer cannot serve as a judge – Supreme Court nominee

    On August 13, 2024, a nominee for the Supreme Court, Justice Sophia Essah, clarified that Ghana’s Constitution prohibits holding both the roles of a lawyer and a judge simultaneously.

    Justice Essah explained that these roles are mutually exclusive.

    “You cannot be in this country as a lawyer and at the same time, a judge. Because the work of a lawyer is different from a judge. I cannot go and be an advocate, have clients, or represent anyone in court. That is the work of a lawyer.

    “And so once I became a judge, I could no longer be a lawyer even though I have legal professional knowledge and background,” she said during her vetting on Tuesday, August 13.

    Her remarks addressed concerns raised by Mahama Ayariga, MP for Bawku Central.

    Mr Ayariga questioned whether Justice Essah met the Constitutional requirement of 15 years of legal practice to qualify for the Supreme Court, noting that the Constitution demands candidates to have high moral character, proven integrity, and significant legal experience.

    Justice Essah responded by acknowledging that there might be different interpretations of the Constitutional provisions.

    However, she maintained that she fulfills the criteria for the Supreme Court appointment as outlined in the Constitution, despite varying views on its requirements.

  • R. Kelly appeals his sex crime sentences to the US Supreme Court

    R. Kelly appeals his sex crime sentences to the US Supreme Court

    Disgraced R&B star R. Kelly, sentenced to 30 years in prison in 2022 for sexual exploitation of minors, forced labor, and racketeering, is now appealing to the highest court in the United States in a bid for freedom.

    On July 31, 2024, Kelly’s legal team submitted an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, aiming to overturn his convictions on several sex crime charges.

    The artist, famed for his hit “I Believe I Can Fly,” claims that his trial was fraught with significant legal errors that breached his constitutional rights.

    Key points of the appeal:


    Unfair jury selection:     Kelly’s defence claims that the jury selection process was flawed, potentially leading to a biased panel that was predisposed against him.


    Questionable evidence: The appeal challenges the admission of certain pieces of evidence that the defence believes should have been excluded from the trial. They argue that this evidence unduly influenced the jury’s decision.


    Witness credibility: The legal team questions the reliability of the testimonies from key witnesses, suggesting that their accounts may not have been trustworthy.


    R. Kelly’s legal team is seeking either a complete overturn of his convictions or a new trial, arguing that the original proceedings were significantly flawed.

    The Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision on whether to review the case could mark a crucial moment in Kelly’s prolonged legal struggles.

    The U.S. Supreme Court typically hears only a small fraction of cases annually, making it uncertain whether they will accept Kelly’s appeal.

    Should they choose to do so, it might result in a new trial or potentially his release from incarceration. For now, the public is left awaiting the outcome and whether the former music icon will have another opportunity to exonerate himself.

    As the legal battle continues, the question remains whether justice will be served or if this represents merely another episode in the troubled life of a once-celebrated performer.

  • If you like go to Supreme Court, I’ll meet you there – Jakpa to AG

    If you like go to Supreme Court, I’ll meet you there – Jakpa to AG

    The third accused in the ambulance trial, Richard Jakpa, has stated that he is undeterred by the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice Godfred Yeboah Dame’s decision to appeal the Court of Appeal’s judgment that acquitted both him and Minority Leader, Dr. Cassiel Ato Forson.

    The Attorney-General has expressed intentions to take the matter to the Supreme Court.

    Speaking to journalists in Accra, Jakpa conveyed his readiness to face the Attorney-General in any court.

    “I’m more than prepared, I’m always ready, if the Attorney-General wants to to go the Supreme Court to appeal against the ruling, I will meet him there. Even if he doesn’t win and he wants to go for a review, I will meet him there. Wherever he wants to go, I will meet him there, I don’t have an issue at all.

    “I’m ready for this government, all that I can say is that my enemies and detractors have been put to shame, I have been vindicated,” Richard Jakpa said.

    Recently, the Court of Appeal overturned the trial court’s directive for Dr. Forson to present his defense in the ongoing ambulance case.

    Earlier, on June 6, the High Court in Accra had dismissed Dr. Forson’s application for a mistrial and an investigation into the Attorney-General’s conduct. The trial judge ruled that Dr. Forson had not provided sufficient legal grounds to justify a mistrial or an inquiry into the Attorney-General’s actions.

    Dr. Forson had filed a supplementary affidavit on June 3, seeking a mistrial, injunction, and/or stay of proceedings in the ambulance case against him and two others. His legal team cited a leaked recording allegedly showing the Attorney-General coaching Jakpa to implicate Dr. Forson during the trial.

    The affidavit claimed that the Attorney-General had engaged in misconduct and called for the trial to be declared a mistrial. “It has become necessary to file this affidavit to highlight critical and relevant matters for the Court’s attention in the interest of justice,” the affidavit read. It also mentioned a widely circulated audio recording in which the Attorney-General allegedly discussed with Jakpa the evidence he should present at the trial.

    The affidavit further argued that not declaring a mistrial in light of such blatant disregard for the rule of law and ethical prosecution standards by the Attorney-General could severely damage public confidence in the judicial system.

    Ultimately, the Court of Appeal upheld Dr. Forson’s appeal in a 2:1 majority decision, also acquitting businessman Richard Jakpa.

    “It has become necessary to file this affidavit in order to bring to the attention of the Court and in the interest of justice, certain pertinent, material and relevant matters that have a bearing on the fair and just determination of the current application.

    “That I say that I have since filing the instant application had the opportunity of listening to a recording widely circulating in the media depicting the voices of the Attorney-General and A3 fervently discussing the evidence the Attorney-General will prefer the said A3 to adduce at the trial. At the hearing of the instant application, my counsel will seek leave of the court to have the said audio recording played in open court.”

    The Minority Leader further argued that failing to order a mistrial in these circumstances, where there appears to be a blatant disregard for the rule of law and ethical prosecution standards by the Attorney-General, could severely undermine public confidence in the judicial process.

    Subsequently, the Minority Leader filed an appeal at the Court of Appeal, which was upheld by a 2:1 majority decision. Businessman Richard Jakpa, the third accused, was also acquitted by the court.

  • Minority fumes over proposed vetting of SC judge nominees

    Minority fumes over proposed vetting of SC judge nominees

    The Minority in Parliament on the Appointments Committee over lack of consultation over the vetting of some judges nominated by President Akufo-Addo to the Supreme Court.

    The Minority said there was no decision to vet the nominees today as the Speaker and his two deputies would not be available due to parliamentary businesses they had to take care of.

    Deputy Majority Leader, Patricia Appiagyei, is said to have written to the nominees, informing them of their vetting.

    “You unilaterally wrote a letter to the nominees inviting them for vetting without the approval of the Appointments Committee,” Dr Ato Forson, the Minority Leader said.

    Despite the letter dated Wednesday, July 31, for the vetting which was not approved, the date for vetting was later altered to today, Tuesday, July 30.

    The Minority MPs have expressed their readiness to prevent the vetting from taking place until the right processes are followed.

    President Akufo-Addo has nominated two new judges to the Supreme Court bench following their approval by the Judicial Council.

    The two are Professor Richard Frimpong Oppong, a legal academic and fellow of the Ghana Academy of Sciences, and Justice Sophia Rosetta Bernasko Essah, a justice of the Court of Appeal.

    When the two new nominees are approved by parliament, the current number of justices at the Supreme Court will increase to 17.

  • Law against anal sex in Ghana legally valid – Supreme Court rules

    Law against anal sex in Ghana legally valid – Supreme Court rules

    Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutionality of the law prohibiting unnatural carnal knowledge, including anal sex.

    On Wednesday, July 24, 2024, the seven-member panel unanimously rejected a challenge to Section 104 (1) (b) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29).

    Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie led the court, but a detailed explanation of their decision will be made available at the court’s registry.

    The challenge was brought by Dr. Prince Obiri-Korang, a lecturer at the University of Ghana Law School.

    Section 104 (1) (b) criminalizes unnatural carnal knowledge of individuals aged 16 and older, even if consensual, and classifies it as a misdemeanor. Section 104 (2) defines unnatural carnal knowledge as sex conducted in an unnatural manner or with an animal.

    Dr. Obiri-Korang contended that Section 104(1)(b) violated the right to privacy under Article 18, the right against discrimination under Article 17, and the protection of personal liberties under Article 14 of the 1992 Constitution.

  • BoG vindicated in UniCredit licence revocation by Supreme Court

    BoG vindicated in UniCredit licence revocation by Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court of Ghana has upheld the Bank of Ghana‘s (BoG) decision to revoke UniCredit Ghana Limited’s operating license, reversing an earlier appellate court ruling.

    The Supreme Court, in a unanimous verdict, supported the High Court’s earlier decision, confirming that the BoG acted within its legal authority. The panel, consisting of Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo and Justices Mariama Owusu, Prof. Henrietta Joy Abena Nyarko Mensa-Bonsu, Ernest Yao Gaewu, and Yaw Darko Asare, agreed that the BoG’s actions were justified in declaring UniCredit insolvent and revoking its license.

    Background on the Case

    The BoG declared UniCredit insolvent on August 16, 2019, due to its failure to meet financial requirements set under section 123 of the Banks and Specialised Deposit Taking Institutions Act of 2016 (Act 930). This prompted Hoda Holdings Ltd., the major shareholder in UniCredit, to challenge the decision in court, claiming that UniCredit had not received a fair hearing.

    The High Court, led by Justice Gifty Agyei Addo, ruled in favor of the BoG on March 18, 2021. The court concluded that the BoG had given UniCredit sufficient opportunity to address its financial shortcomings before proceeding with the license revocation, and that this action was lawful under Act 930.

    Appeal and Supreme Court Judgment

    Dissatisfied with this outcome, Hoda Holdings appealed to the Court of Appeal, which on July 7, 2022, reversed the High Court’s decision. The appellate court found that the BoG had not fully complied with the procedural requirements specified in section 16(3&4) of Act 930, thereby denying UniCredit a fair hearing. This ruling favored Hoda Holdings.

    The BoG contested this decision, leading to the Supreme Court’s involvement. The highest court’s ruling reinstated the High Court’s judgment, affirming that the BoG had adhered to proper procedures and had acted within its rights. Chief Justice Sackey Torkornoo stated that the BoG had given UniCredit ample chances to rectify its issues, and the license revocation was carried out in accordance with legal standards.

    Impact and Reactions

    This decision reinforces the BoG’s role in regulating and stabilizing the financial sector. The ruling validates the BoG’s enforcement of banking regulations and underscores its commitment to maintaining financial stability in Ghana.

    The BoG expressed contentment with the outcome, emphasizing its commitment to regulatory adherence. Meanwhile, Hoda Holdings acknowledged the Supreme Court’s decision but expressed their ongoing concerns regarding the case.

    The verdict concludes a lengthy legal process and sets a significant precedent for the interpretation and enforcement of banking regulations in Ghana, highlighting the importance of regulatory compliance and judicial oversight in financial matters.

  • Supreme Court upholds legality of ‘unnatural carnal knowledge’ law

    Supreme Court upholds legality of ‘unnatural carnal knowledge’ law

    The Supreme Court has affirmed the constitutionality of the existing criminal law against unnatural carnal knowledge involving persons aged sixteen and above.

    This ruling confirms the validity of section 104(1)(b) of the Criminal and Offences Act 1960 (Act 29).

    The court’s unanimous decision came in response to a petition filed by Dr. Obiri-Korang of the University of Ghana School of Law, who argued that the provision violated Articles 18(2), 17(2), and 14(1) of the 1992 Constitution.

    Dr. Obiri-Korang’s contention centered on the assertion that section 104(1)(b) infringes on the rights of privacy, non-discrimination, and personal liberties.

    For clarity, section 104(1)(b) of Act 29 states:

    “104. Unnatural carnal knowledge
    (1) A person who has unnatural carnal knowledge
    (b) of another person of not less than sixteen years of age with the consent of that other person commits a misdemeanour.”

    The Plaintiff argued that this provision conflicts with the following constitutional articles:

    • Article 18(2) – Right to privacy
    • Article 17(2) – Right to non-discrimination
    • Article 14(1) – Protection of personal liberties

    Despite these arguments, the Supreme Court, led by Justice Baffoe-Bonnie J.S.C and including Justices Amadu Tanko, Gaewu, Adjei-Frimpong, Lovelace-Johnson, Kulendi, and Darko Asare, ruled that the law is in accordance with the Constitution and does not violate the cited articles.

  • There should be a limit on the number of judges at the Supreme Court – Speaker Bagbin

    There should be a limit on the number of judges at the Supreme Court – Speaker Bagbin

    Speaker of Parliament Alban Bagbin has called for legislation to set a cap on the number of justices serving on Ghana’s Supreme Court.

    Currently, the country’s constitution stipulates nine judges for the Supreme Court but does not establish an upper limit.

    Speaker Bagbin’s advocacy comes in the wake of President Nana Akufo-Addo’s recent nomination of two new justices to the Supreme Court to replace the retiring justices.

    The nominees are Justice Sophia Rosseta Bernasko Essah and Professor Richard Frimpong Oppong, intended to fill the vacancies left by the retirement of Justice Nii Ashie Kotey and the upcoming retirement of Justice Mariama Owusu.

    Addressing the House, Speaker Bagbin emphasized the need for a defined upper limit on the number of Supreme Court justices.

    “We’re being called through this letter as a House to look into the issue of a full complement of the Supreme Court, should it be 13, 15, 20, 40, or 100. It’s for this House to decide,” he stated.

    He urged Parliament to consider legislative reforms to establish this upper limit, taking into account the needs of a country with a population of 33 million people.

    The Speaker’s recommendation follows President Akufo-Addo‘s transmission of the nominations to Parliament, which Speaker Bagbin subsequently referred to the Appointments Committee for review and feedback.

    This development is part of broader discussions about the composition of Ghana’s judiciary. Recently, the Chief Justice recommended five judges to President Akufo-Addo for consideration for the Supreme Court.

    Among the recommended judges is Justice Afia Serwaa Asare Botwe, who is currently presiding over the high-profile ambulance procurement trial. Other nominees include Justice Cyra Pamela Koranteng, Justice Edward Amoako Asante, Justice Eric Kyei Baffuour, and Justice Angelina Mensah Homiah.

    The Chief Justice’s recommendations have sparked significant debate and criticism, particularly from the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC) and various organizations.

  • Akufo-Addo adds 2 more judges to Supreme Court nominees list

    Akufo-Addo adds 2 more judges to Supreme Court nominees list

    President Akufo-Addo has put forward two new nominees for the Supreme Court bench following their endorsement by the Judicial Council.

    The nominees are Professor Richard Frimpong Oppong, a distinguished legal academic and fellow of the Ghana Academy of Sciences, and Justice Sophia Rosetta Bernasko Essah, a justice of the Court of Appeal.

    President Akufo-Addo announced that these nominees are to undergo vetting by Parliament as stipulated by the constitution.

    Upon approval, Prof. Frimpong Oppong will join Prof. Henrietta Mensah-Bonsu as one of the legal academics on Ghana’s Supreme Court.

    Justice Bernasko Essah, with her extensive experience as a State Attorney, private legal practitioner, and Justice of the High Court and Court of Appeal, will bring significant expertise to the Supreme Court.

    These nominations follow a recent request from Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo to President Akufo-Addo, urging him to nominate five judges to the Supreme Court to manage the high volume of cases.

    The Chief Justice recommended Justice Afia Serwaa Asare Botwe, who is currently handling the Ato Forson ambulance procurement trial, along with four other judges: Justice Cyra Pamela Koranteng, Justice Edward Amoako Asante, Justice Eric Kyei Baffuour, and Justice Angelina Mensah Homiah.

    This procedure faced criticism from various groups and individuals, especially from the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC), with some demanding the Chief Justice’s resignation.

    However, the President’s latest nominations did not include the names suggested by the Chief Justice, leading to speculation about whether those recommendations were rejected or are still under consideration.

    If Parliament approves the two new nominees, the number of justices on the Supreme Court will rise to 17.

  • Sewfi Wiawso MP clashes with Speaker in parliament

    The Speaker of Parliament, Alban Bagbin, has directed the removal of Kwaku Afriyie, the Member of Parliament for Sefwi Wiawso, due to his contemptuous remarks in the parliamentary chamber.

    The incident took place after the Speaker announced new Supreme Court judge nominations.

    Although the specifics of Afriyie’s comments were not captured by the microphone, Speaker Bagbin found them disrespectful and promptly ordered the MP to leave the chamber.

    “I will not entertain such disrespect. Marshal, please take him out,” the Speaker commanded.

    Speaker Bagbin has previously cautioned MPs against making passing and derogatory comments during sessions, a behavior that has been prevalent.

    However, this marks the first time the Speaker has enforced such a measure.

  • Supreme Court Judge criticises FDA’s ban on celebrities advertising alcoholic beverages

    Supreme Court Judge criticises FDA’s ban on celebrities advertising alcoholic beverages

    Justice Barbara Ackah-Yensu, a member of Ghana‘s Supreme Court, has indicated that the Food and Drugs Authority (FDA) guideline banning celebrities from advertising alcoholic beverages is unconstitutional.

    The directive, which prohibited the use of well-known personalities in such advertisements, was regarded as discriminatory by Justice Ackah-Yensu, who argued that it unfairly infringed upon individuals’ economic rights and interests.

    In her dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Prof. Henrietta Mensa-Bonsu, she criticized Guideline 3.2.10 of the FDA’s 2016 regulations as inconsistent with the Constitution.

    She stated that the guideline be struck down and barred the FDA from enforcing it, stressing that the FDA should find a constitutional way to achieve its public health goals without discrimination.

     “No well-known personality or professional shall be used in alcoholic beverage advertising,” is “unconstitutional,” she stated.

    Justice Ackah-Yensu also suggested that existing laws like the Liquor License Act already address concerns about responsible alcohol consumption, and that if more restrictions are needed, they should be enacted through Parliament.

    In contrast, the majority of the Supreme Court judges, led by Chief Justice Gertrude Sackey Torkornoo, upheld the FDA’s directive, concluding that it was within the FDA’s authority under the Public Health Act, 2012, to regulate such advertising to safeguard public health.

    The majority found the guideline reasonable and not in violation of the Constitution.

    The case was dismissed, supporting the FDA’s stance on the issue.

    The directive, initially introduced in 2015 to protect minors and public health, faced legal challenge from Mark Darlington Osae, an artiste manager, who argued it was discriminatory against the creative industry.

  • Supreme Court postpones verdict on anti-LGBTQ Bill injunctions

    Supreme Court postpones verdict on anti-LGBTQ Bill injunctions

    The Supreme Court has postponed its decision on the injunction application filed by Dr. Amanda Odoi and Broadcast Journalist, Richard Sky, against the transmission of the anti-LGBTQ bill to the President.

    Instead, the court will deliver its ruling on the same day as the final judgment.

    Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, leading the five-member panel, emphasized the court’s commitment to ensuring a fair trial and swift justice.

    Separate rulings were issued on the injunction applications, and the case has been adjourned sine die.

    The lawsuits, brought by Richard Dela Sky and Dr. Amanda Odoi, challenge Parliament’s passage of the controversial anti-gay bill.

    Richard Sky argues for the bill’s unconstitutionality under the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, seeking a declaration that it violates multiple provisions of the 1992 constitution and fundamental human rights.

    Dr. Amanda Odoi raises concerns about specific provisions in the bill and seeks an injunction to halt its transmission to President Akufo-Addo.

    During the proceedings, Dr. Ernest Ackon, representing Amanda Odoi, argued that the bill imposes direct charges on public funds, violating Article 108, and criticized the lack of a fiscal impact analysis before sending the bill to the President.

    Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame defended the Speaker’s discretion in transmitting bills, contending that it is constitutionally sound and not subject to undue constraints.

    Thaddeus Sory, representing the Speaker of Parliament, disputed the necessity of a fiscal impact analysis, arguing it was unfounded given the bill’s contents.

    He urged the court to dismiss the application, emphasizing that the transmission process to the President was ongoing and beyond the court’s current jurisdiction.

    Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo presided over the proceedings involving Richard Dela Sky’s case.

  • Anti-LGBTQ Bill in limbo as Supreme Court defers ruling on injunction applications

    Anti-LGBTQ Bill in limbo as Supreme Court defers ruling on injunction applications

    The Supreme Court of Ghana has postponed its ruling on the injunction applications filed by Broadcast Journalist Richard Dela Sky and Researcher Dr. Amanda Odoi regarding the transmission of the controversial anti-LGBTQ bill to President Nana Akufo-Addo.

    The court announced that it will deliver its ruling on the injunction applications concurrently with the final judgment.

    Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo, presiding over a five-member panel, emphasized that an expedited trial would better serve the interests of justice in this matter.

    The decision comes amidst heightened public interest and legal scrutiny surrounding the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill recently passed by Parliament.

    During separate hearings, the Supreme Court addressed the concerns raised by Richard Dela Sky and Dr. Amanda Odoi. Mr. Sky challenges the constitutionality of the bill, arguing that it violates multiple provisions of the 1992 constitution and encroaches upon fundamental human rights.

    Dr. Odoi, on the other hand, expressed specific reservations about certain provisions within the bill and sought an injunction to halt its transmission to the President for approval. Her legal counsel, Dr. Ernest Ackon, contended that the bill’s passage lacked a fiscal impact analysis, potentially infringing Article 108 of the constitution.

    In response, the Attorney-General, Godfred Yeboah Dame, defended Parliament’s actions, asserting that the Speaker’s discretion in transmitting bills to the President is constitutionally bound and does not require additional fiscal scrutiny beyond what is explicitly stated in the bill.

    Thaddeus Sory, representing the Speaker of Parliament, argued against the injunctions, emphasizing that the legislative process remains ongoing until the bill receives presidential assent, thus placing it outside the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to intervene prematurely.

  • Prof Frimpong Oppong, Bernasko Essah approved by Judicial Council for Supreme Court appointment

    Prof Frimpong Oppong, Bernasko Essah approved by Judicial Council for Supreme Court appointment

    The Judicial Council has approved Professor Richard Frimpong Oppong, a distinguished Fellow of the Ghana Academy of Sciences and a respected Professor of Law, along with Justice Sophia Rosetta Bernasko Essah, a learned Justice of the Court of Appeal, for appointment to the Supreme Court Bench.

    President Akufo-Addo announced their approval during the inauguration of the Governing Board of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Centre on Monday, July 16, 2024.

    The President stated that both nominees will appear before Parliament for the constitutionally mandated vetting process.

    Professor Frimpong Oppong, who will join Professor Mensah-Bonsu as a legal academic on Ghana’s highest court, brings extensive experience in law practice both in Ghana and internationally, including his role as an arbitrator.

    He is also an esteemed law teacher with teaching experience in Ghana, Europe, and America. Like his predecessors, Justice Professors Date-Bah and Mensah-Bonsu, Prof. Frimpong Oppong has achieved significant academic and professional accomplishments.

    Justice Bernasko Essah’s career includes roles as a State Attorney, private practitioner, and Justice of the High Court and Court of Appeal. She is also a member of the International Association of Women Judges (IAWJ).

  • CJ’s request for a minimum of 20 justices of the Supreme Court unreasonable – Private legal practitioner

    CJ’s request for a minimum of 20 justices of the Supreme Court unreasonable – Private legal practitioner

    Legal practitioner Kwaku Asare has criticized Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Torkornoo‘s request for a minimum of 20 Supreme Court justices to handle around 600 cases annually, calling it unreasonable.

    He pointed out that many Supreme Courts worldwide manage double or triple that caseload with about seven justices.

    Chief Justice Torkornoo has proposed expanding the bench to 20 justices due to the high volume of cases.

    She recently nominated five judges to the Supreme Court, citing the urgent need for more judges to meet the nation’s justice needs.

    “Two days are used for panel sitting, and one day for the sitting of a single judge. The SCOG therefore sits 12 times a month. On any given day of sitting, the court deals with a minimum of 15 cases and so works on not fewer than 45 matters in a week or approximately 180 matters in a month,” she clarified.

    In response, Asare argued on Facebook that requiring 20 justices compromises the principle of a balanced panel.

    He expressed concern that the Chief Justice’s push to promote specific judges has undermined the court’s integrity.

    “It is unreasonable to require a minimum of 20 Supreme Court Justices to handle approximately 600 cases annually. In comparison, many Supreme Courts around the world manage double or triple that number of cases with about seven Justices.

    “To uphold the principle of ‘a panel of equals,’ it is essential that no Supreme Court Justice feels indebted to the Chief Justice for their appointment. The Chief Justice’s request to promote certain judges has irreparably compromised the integrity of the bench.”

    Meanwhile, Attorney-General Godfred Dame defended the Chief Justice’s request, noting that Ghana’s Supreme Court operates uniquely and rejecting accusations of court-packing by President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo.

    “What I am aware of is the request from Chief Justice, I believe that the Judiciary is no doubt better placed to provide ample justification for the need for an enhanced Supreme Court, but again it is worthy to note that the Supreme Court of Ghana is quite unique and different from other Supreme Courts around the world,” he said in an interview on the sidelines of the United States Independence Day Event at the Embassy Garden in Accra.”

  • Chief Justice has the mandate to request for more Supreme Court judges – Majority

    Chief Justice has the mandate to request for more Supreme Court judges – Majority

    The Majority in Parliament has rallied behind Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Torkornoo’s proposal to expand the Supreme Court’s bench to 20 judges.

    This move comes in response to the Chief Justice’s submission of five judges for nomination to President Akufo-Addo, citing the escalating caseload faced by the judiciary.

    The proposal has sparked criticism from the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC), which has labeled it as unlawful.

    However, Majority Leader Alexander Afenyo-Markin has vehemently defended the Chief Justice’s authority to make such recommendations, asserting that it falls well within the legal frameworks.

    Addressing journalists in Accra on Monday, Afenyo-Markin stated, “We’ve become aware that the chief justice has mooted a proposal to expand the supreme court to 20 judges for efficiency and effectiveness. Some people are saying that the Chief Justice does not have such a mandate to do so. We disagree and would say that per article 125 (4) of the constitution, there are some inherent powers provided for in this provision that allow the Chief Justice as a chief executive and head of the judiciary to make such proposals.”

    He further elaborated, “The framers of our constitution in their wisdom gave us a minimum ceiling. What did they anticipate? The anticipation was that there could be a possibility in future to increase the number. That is why they did not provide for an upper ceiling… So if you read this and juxtapose it against the 125, 125, 4 that I earlier referred to, clearly you cannot argue that any increase in the number of judges at the Supreme Court above 10 is unconstitutional or that the chief justice is wrong in making such a suggestion or proposal.”

    Afenyo-Markin emphasized the Chief Justice’s role in overseeing the judiciary’s administration and stressed her prerogative to propose measures aimed at enhancing operational efficiency within the bounds of the law.

  • Nominees for Supreme Court not bad, but timing is – Martin Kpebu

    Nominees for Supreme Court not bad, but timing is – Martin Kpebu

    Legal expert Martin Kpebu has criticized the timing and procedural aspects of the proposal to appoint new Supreme Court justices, describing it as untimely amidst upcoming elections.

    Chief Justice Gertrude Araba Esaba Torkonoo recommended five justices in a May 30, 2024 letter to President Nana Addo Dankwa Akufo-Addo: Justice Angelina Mensah Homiah, Justice Eric Kyei Baffour, Justice Edward Amoako Asante, Justice Cyra Pamela C.A. Koranteng, and Justice Afia Asare Botwe.

    Speaking on TV3’s “Key Points” program, Kpebu emphasized that while the nominees were competent, the timing was inappropriate, suggesting such appointments should await the new president after the 2024 elections.

    He criticized the Chief Justice for not following due process, noting the requirement for a recommendation from the Judicial Council.

    “The nominees are not bad, it is the timing that is bad. These are fine justices, but it is about procedure and timing, this debate is not about competence at all.”

    Nelson Dafeamekpor, also a legal practitioner and MP for South Dayi, accused the Chief Justice of overstepping her powers and argued against the need for additional justices, citing the current 15 justices on the Supreme Court.

    He criticized the practice of assigning Supreme Court judges to lower courts, suggesting it added unnecessary workload.

    “We have 123 High Court judges, we have 32 Court of Appeal judges….Yet, you are bringing Supreme Court judges to high court matters and yet you are complaining that you are inundated with work at the uppermost level.

    “So, keep Supreme Court judges at the supreme level, don’t bring them two floors lower,” he stressed.

    Senior Advisor to Alan Kyerematen, Nana Ohene Ntow, proposed establishing specialized courts with limited jurisdiction to handle specific cases, aiming to alleviate the Supreme Court’s workload and streamline judicial processes.

  • Retract “unconstitutional” Supreme Court judges recommendation to Akufo-Addo – NDC to Chief Justice

    Retract “unconstitutional” Supreme Court judges recommendation to Akufo-Addo – NDC to Chief Justice

    The National Democratic Congress (NDC) has formally called upon Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo to retract her recommendation to President Akufo-Addo regarding the appointment of new Supreme Court judges, citing concerns over constitutionality.

    In a press statement released today, the opposition party expressed strong reservations about the Chief Justice’s recent letter advising President Akufo-Addo to nominate five judges to the Supreme Court. According to the NDC, such a recommendation represents a breach of constitutional norms and threatens the independence of the judiciary.

    “The NDC urges Chief Justice Torkonoo to retract her recommendation to President Akufo-Addo for the appointment of new Supreme Court judges,” stated Fiifi Kwetey, the General Secretary of the NDC, during a media briefing.

    “This action undermines the principles of judicial independence and could set a dangerous precedent for the politicization of Ghana’s judiciary.”

    Kwetey emphasized the importance of upholding constitutional safeguards that ensure the judiciary operates free from political interference. He stressed that the appointment of judges to the highest court in the land should adhere strictly to meritocratic principles and due process, rather than being influenced by political agendas.

    The controversy arose following Chief Justice Torkonoo’s letter dated May 30, 2024, recommending five individuals for appointment to the Supreme Court, including Justice Afia Serwaa Asare Botwe, who currently presides over significant legal proceedings.

    In light of these developments, the NDC has called for a retraction of the recommendation and urged Chief Justice Torkonoo to uphold the judiciary’s role as an independent arbiter in Ghanaian democracy. The party underscored its commitment to safeguarding democratic institutions and ensuring they remain resilient against political interference.

    As the debate unfolds, stakeholders continue to monitor the situation closely, recognizing the critical importance of maintaining judicial integrity and independence in Ghana. The NDC remains steadfast in its advocacy for transparent and constitutional processes in the appointment of judges, aiming to preserve the judiciary’s credibility and effectiveness in upholding justice.

  • We need more Supreme Court judges to address several pending cases – Chief Justice

    We need more Supreme Court judges to address several pending cases – Chief Justice

    Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo has justified the appointment of five new judges to the Supreme Court of Ghana, citing the pressing need to address the backlog of cases currently burdening the judiciary.

    In a letter dated May 30, 2024, addressed to President Nana Akufo-Addo, Chief Justice Torkonoo officially recommended the nomination of five judges to bolster the Supreme Court’s capacity.

    Among the nominees is Justice Afia Serwaa Asare Botwe, who is currently presiding over the contentious ambulance procurement trial involving Ato Forson, among others.

    The other nominees include Justice Cyra Pamela Koranteng, Justice Edward Amoako Asante, Justice Eric Kyei Baffuour, and Justice Angelina Mensah Homiah.

    Speaking on the matter, Chief Justice Torkonoo highlighted the overwhelming workload faced by the Supreme Court, emphasizing that the addition of more judges is crucial to expedite pending cases and ensure timely justice delivery.

    “There are several cases pending, and that is why we need more Supreme Court judges,” she stressed.

    The call for additional judges comes amidst criticism from the National Democratic Congress (NDC), who have labeled the Chief Justice’s recommendation as unconstitutional.

    Fiifi Kwetey, the General Secretary of the NDC, expressed concerns over what he described as an attempt by the Executive to undermine judicial independence.

    “The blatant unconstitutional actions of President Akufo-Addo and Chief Justice Torkonoo are a direct assault on our judicial independence and the soul of our democracy,” Kwetey remarked during a press conference.

    Kwetey further urged Chief Justice Torkonoo to retract her recommendation to President Akufo-Addo, cautioning against the judiciary becoming a political tool rather than a pillar of justice in Ghana.

    “Imagine a Ghana where the Judiciary becomes a mere extension of a failed Executive – a tool for political retribution rather than justice. This is not the Ghana we pledged to fight for,” he added.

  • Interlocutory injunctions against Anti-LGBTQ bill to be ruled on July 17

    Interlocutory injunctions against Anti-LGBTQ bill to be ruled on July 17

    The Supreme Court of Ghana has scheduled July 17, 2024, as the date for delivering rulings on two separate lawsuits challenging Parliament’s passage of the controversial Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill.

    The cases were filed by Broadcast Journalist Richard Dela Sky and Researcher Dr. Amanda Odoi, each raising distinct concerns about the bill.

    Richard Dela Sky, in his lawsuit, challenges the constitutionality of the bill, asserting that it breaches several provisions of the 1992 constitution and infringes upon fundamental human rights guaranteed by Ghanaian law. He seeks a declaration from the court that the bill is unconstitutional.

    Meanwhile, Dr. Amanda Odoi’s lawsuit focuses on specific provisions within the bill that she finds problematic. She has also requested a restraining order to prevent the Speaker of Parliament, the Attorney General, and the Clerk of Parliament from forwarding the bill to President Akufo-Addo for his approval.

    Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo informed the court that the cases would be treated separately, following a request by Attorney-General Godfred Yeboah Dame. This decision means that each lawsuit will receive its own distinct ruling.

    During the proceedings, Dr. Ernest Ackon, representing Dr. Amanda Odoi, argued that the bill imposes a direct charge on public funds, which he claims violates Article 108 of the constitution. He also highlighted the absence of a fiscal impact analysis prior to the bill’s submission to the President.

    In response, Attorney-General Godfred Yeboah Dame defended the constitutionality of the bill, arguing that the Speaker’s discretion in handling such matters is within legal bounds and does not require a fiscal impact analysis as claimed by Dr. Ackon.

    Counsel for the Speaker of Parliament, Thaddeus Sory, countered the arguments, stating that the bill’s transmission to the President is still an ongoing process and therefore not yet subject to the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.

    Sory emphasized that previous applications for injunctions related to the bill had been dismissed by the courts, suggesting a precedent that could influence the current case.

    As the Supreme Court chaired by Chief Justice Gertrude Torkonoo continues to deliberate, stakeholders await the rulings that will determine the fate of the contentious Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill in Ghana.

  • LIVESTREAMING: Anti-LGBTQ bill trial resumes today

    LIVESTREAMING: Anti-LGBTQ bill trial resumes today

    The Supreme Court of Ghana is currently deliberating on an application challenging the constitutionality of the controversial Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill recently passed by Parliament, brought forth by media personality and lawyer, Richard Dela Sky, alongside researcher Dr. Amanda Odoi.

    The petitioners have directed their challenge towards both the Parliament of Ghana and the Attorney General, asserting that the bill violates multiple provisions of the 1992 constitution.

    They argue that the legislation not only contradicts existing national laws but also infringes upon fundamental human rights enshrined in the constitution of Ghana.

    The Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, which has sparked widespread debate and protests within Ghana and internationally, seeks to impose strict penalties on LGBTQ+ activities, advocacy, and relationships in the country.

    Supporters of the bill argue that it upholds traditional family values and societal norms, while opponents decry it as discriminatory and a violation of individual freedoms.

    Follow the court proceedings below:

  • Lawsuits against anti-gay bill to be heard in Supreme Court today

    Lawsuits against anti-gay bill to be heard in Supreme Court today

    The Supreme Court is scheduled to convene today, Wednesday, July 3, to address two lawsuits brought forward by broadcast journalist Richard Dela Sky and researcher Dr. Amanda Odoi concerning Parliament’s passage of the controversial anti-gay bill.

    Richard Dela Sky is challenging the constitutionality of the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, seeking a declaration that the bill violates multiple provisions of the 1992 Constitution and infringes upon fundamental human rights guaranteed therein.

    Dr. Amanda Odoi has expressed concerns about specific provisions within the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill. She is additionally seeking a restraining order to prevent the Speaker, the Attorney General, and the Clerk of Parliament from sending the bill to President Akufo-Addo for approval.

    Following this, the presidency has instructed Parliament to withhold the transmission of the bill until the court addresses the pending legal challenges.

    A notice dated June 14, 2024, from the registrar of the Supreme Court, Her Honour Ellen Ofei-Ayeh, confirms that the case has been scheduled for July 3.

    The notice was issued to Richard Sky, represented by Cudjoe Arthur Chambers, the Speaker of Parliament represented by Thaddeus Sory, and the Attorney General.

    “Take notice that the above-mentioned case has been fixed for Wednesday, the 3rd day of July 2024 at 9:30 am for hearing. If the case is called and you do not appear to answer, the Court will proceed to hear same without you,” the hearing notice read.

  • Supreme Court supports BoG’s license revocation of UniCredit

    Supreme Court supports BoG’s license revocation of UniCredit

    The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, overturned the Court of Appeal’s ruling and upheld the High Court’s decision in the case involving The Republic versus the Bank of Ghana (BoG), Ex Parte Hoda Holdings Limited.

    In its ruling, the Supreme Court affirmed that the Bank of Ghana was justified in revoking the license of UniCredit Ghana Limited.

    Chief Justice Araba Esaaba Sackey Torkornoo presided over the five-member panel, which also included Justices Mariama Owusu, Prof. Henrietta Joy Abena Nyarko Mensa-Bonsu, Ernest Yao Gaewu, and Yaw Darko Asare. The ruling was issued on June 26, 2024.

    Background

    On August 16, 2019, the Bank of Ghana declared UniCredit Ghana (UniCredit) bankrupt and annulled its license to operate as a savings and loans company.

    The Bank of Ghana justified its actions under section 123 of the Banks and Specialised Deposit Taking Institutions Act of 2016 (Act 930).

    Following this decision, HODA Holdings Limited, the majority shareholder of UniCredit, filed an application at the Human Rights Division of the High Court. Their application sought judicial review of the Bank of Ghana’s decision to annul UniCredit’s license and requested an injunction to prevent the Bank from interfering with UniCredit’s operations.


    High Court Ruling on the Case

    On March 18, 2021, Justice Gifty Agyei Addo’s High Court ruling favored the Bank of Ghana, affirming that UniCredit was financially distressed before its license was terminated.

    The court also determined that contrary to UniCredit’s assertion of being denied a hearing, the Bank of Ghana had issued numerous notices to UniCredit.

    “Directing it to rectify its capital deficiency failing which the Bank of Ghana would exercise its powers under s.123 of Act 930.”

    The Court also affirmed that the Bank of Ghana acted correctly in revoking UniCredit’s license.

    It upheld that the Bank of Ghana’s actions to revoke UniCredit’s license and place it under receivership were in accordance with Act 930.

    Appeal of the case by HODA Holdings

    Hoda Holdings Ltd lodged an appeal with the Court of Appeal in response to the High Court’s decision.

    On July 7, 2022, the Court of Appeal, composed of Justice Janapare A. Bartels-Kodwo, Justice Merley Wood, and Justice G.S. Suurbaareh, overturned the High Court’s ruling and sided with Hoda Holdings Ltd.

    The Court of Appeal determined that the Bank of Ghana’s revocation of UniCredit’s license under section 123 of Act 930 should have adhered to the procedures outlined in section 16(3&4) of the same Act. It also found that the Bank of Ghana’s failure to comply with these procedures meant that UniCredit was not afforded a hearing before its license was revoked.

    BoG’s Appeal to the Supreme Court 

    The Bank of Ghana, which had some concerns with the decision of the Court of Appeal, also filed an appeal at the Supreme Court against the decision of the Court of Appeal. This has resulted in the new ruling by the highest court of the land on this particular case.

  • Alcoholic drinks can’t be advertised by celebrities – Supreme Court rules

    Alcoholic drinks can’t be advertised by celebrities – Supreme Court rules

    In a majority decision, the Supreme Court has upheld the Food and Drugs Authority’s (FDA) directive that prevents celebrities from endorsing alcoholic drinks.

    This ruling concludes a nineteen-month legal battle initiated by Mark Darlington Osae, CEO of Black Kulcha Music, against the FDA.

    Chief Justice Gertrude Torkornoo delivered an abridged version of the ruling on Wednesday, June 19, stating that the FDA’s directive does not violate the constitution.

    As a result, well-known personalities or professionals are permanently prohibited from appearing in advertisements that promote alcoholic beverages.

    The FDA’s directive, which was implemented in 2015 to regulate alcohol consumption in Ghana, includes guidelines that restrict celebrities from advertising alcoholic beverages. The FDA justified this restriction by citing the influential nature of celebrities, which could potentially influence minors to engage in alcoholism.

    Representing the plaintiff, Mark Darlington Osae, was Bobby Banson from the Robert Smith Law Group, while the FDA was represented by Justine Amenuvor. Osae filed a writ at the Supreme Court on November 11, 2022, challenging the FDA’s regulations as discriminatory against the creative arts industry.

    According to Osae, the FDA’s directive is inconsistent with and in contravention of articles 17(1) and 17(2) of the 1992 Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and prohibit discrimination based on social or economic status, occupation, among others.

    Many figures from the creative industry, including Wendy Shay, Shatta Wale, Brother Sammy, Kuami Eugene, and Camidoh, have spoken out against the FDA’s directive. They argue that endorsements or advertisements for alcoholic beverages are crucial income streams for them and that any law restricting such activities deprives them of their livelihood.

  • Jakpa ‘betrays’ his Supreme Court Judge cousin Yonny Kulendi

    Jakpa ‘betrays’ his Supreme Court Judge cousin Yonny Kulendi

    Richard Jakpa, the man at the centre of the secret recording in the ongoing ambulance case has accused his cousin Justice Yonny Kulendi of ambush.

    Richard Jakpa who secretly recorded Attorney General Godfred Yeboah Dame revealed that he, Jakpa, initiated the interactions with the Attorney-General.

    According to Richard Japka, he has only been meeting the Attorney General in the house of the Supreme Court judge.

    Under cross-examination, he also revealed that in one of the instances, he spoke to Godfred Dame on the phone of Justice Kulendi, a cousin. The Supreme Court judge, according to Jakpa, had called with his phone and made him speak to Godfred Dame through his phone.

    Justice Yonny Kulendi

    The third accused person in the ambulance case also revealed that in the cases where he met with the Attorney General, it was at the instance of the Supreme Court Justice.

    He noted in court that he felt ambushed by Justice Kulendi the last time when he arrived at Kulendi’s home only to meet Godfred Dame already in the house.

  • High Court postpones anti-LGBTQ+ case until July 29

    High Court postpones anti-LGBTQ+ case until July 29

    An Accra High Court has postponed the proceedings concerning the Human Sexual Rights and Family Values Bill, commonly referred to as the anti-LGBTQ+ bill, until July 29, 2024.

    The adjournment occurred following instructions for lawyers representing one of the petitioners, Paul Boama-Sefa, to submit their written arguments within four weeks.

    Furthermore, the court is awaiting a response from the Speaker of Parliament, who is the defendant in the case.

    In a notable development, the Judiciary Service has granted permission for live media coverage of cases related to the anti-LGBT+ bill.

    This decision signifies a significant shift towards transparency, allowing the public to closely monitor these legal proceedings.

    Previously, media houses were authorised by the Chief Justice to livestream the hearing of Richard Sky’s injunction application against the passage of the anti-LGBTQ+ bill at the Supreme Court.

    Now, with the broader directive from the Judicial Service, all cases associated with the anti-LGBTQ+ bill will be open to media coverage.

    Currently, four cases linked to the anti-LGBTQ+ bill have been filed at various levels of the court system.

    Two of these cases are scheduled for hearing at the High Court, while the remaining two will be addressed at the Supreme Court.

  • NPP’s Nana B names Supreme Court Justice in Dame-Jakpa case

    NPP’s Nana B names Supreme Court Justice in Dame-Jakpa case

    National Organizer of the ruling New Patriotic Party (NPP), Henry Nana Boakye, also known as Nana B, has revealed the identity of the Supreme Court Justice referenced in a meeting where Attorney-General Godfred Dame discussed a high-profile financial crime trial with an accused person.

    In a social media post on May 27, 2024, Nana B identified the Supreme Court Justice as Justice Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi.

    A spokesperson for the Attorney-General confirmed on May 26, 2024, that a meeting took place between Godfred Dame and Richard Jakpa, the third accused in the ongoing ambulance purchase trial involving Minority Leader Cassiel Ato Forson.

    Wilberforce Mensah, speaking on behalf of the A-G, stated that the meeting occurred at the home of an unnamed Supreme Court Justice, who is Jakpa’s cousin.

    He clarified that Dame was unaware of Jakpa’s attendance at the April 2024 meeting and, although they discussed Jakpa’s plea-bargaining proposal, the A-G did not seek Jakpa’s assistance to implicate Ato Forson.

    Nana B’s post also claimed that the opposition National Democratic Congress (NDC) alleges to have evidence implicating the A-G in unethical and criminal conduct, which reportedly consists of an audio recording from the mentioned meeting.

    “We are reliably informed that NDC is trying every means to maliciously ‘doctor’ the said tape to exclude portions of the conversation and particularly the voice of the Supreme Court Justice, whose invitation the AG honoured out of courtesy.

    “The full-length recording will reveal the AG never requested Richard Jakpa to skew his testimony in any manner as bandied around by the NDC,” he added.

    Meanwhile, the NDC has dedicated its Moment of Truth press conference scheduled for today (May 28, 2024) to provide its incontrovertible evidence of the A-G’s misdeeds.

    Details of the event are below:

    TOPIC: Unprofessional and criminal conduct of the Attorney-General in the Ato Forson trial.

    SPEAKER: Johnson Asiedu Nketiah, National Chairman, NDC.

    DATE/TIME: 2:00 pm on Tuesday, May 28, 2024.

    VENUE: NDC Headquarters, Adabraka.

    Below is Nana B’s full post

    On the dishonorable and discredited Ato Forson’s trial:

    The NDC has since the commencement of the prosecution of Ato Forson employed every rule in the book to frustrate, manipulate and curtail bringing Ato Forson to justice for the huge financial loss occasioned by Ghana at the expense of much-needed emergency health services for the Ghanaian populace.

    The latest in this charade is the claim of possessing some damning evidence which has been found out to be a recording by Richard Jakpa at a meeting the AG was invited to by a Supreme Court judge, Justice Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi without being informed Richard Jakpa will be present.

    We are reliably informed that NDC is trying every means to maliciously ‘doctor’ the said tape to exclude portions of the conversation and particularly the voice of the Supreme Court Justice, whose invitation the AG honoured out of courtesy.

    The full-length recording will reveal the AG never requested Richard Jakpa to skew his testimony in any manner as bandied around by the NDC.

    Justice they say must be done even if the heavens fall and no amount of scheming by the NDC and its affiliates will exonerate any person who participated in misrepresenting ordinary vans as ambulances to the Ghanaian populace.

  • Supreme Court throws out suit challenging constitutionality of law on attempted suicide

    Supreme Court throws out suit challenging constitutionality of law on attempted suicide

    The Supreme Court has dismissed a suit challenging the constitutionality of a law that criminalized attempted suicide.

    A seven-member panel struck down the suit after Parliament passed a new law amending the old one, thereby decriminalizing attempted suicide and rendering the legal action moot.

    During the hearing, the Justices of the Supreme Court, led by Justice Paul Baffoe-Bonnie, inquired if State Attorneys defending the state were aware of the newly passed law that had removed the offence of attempted suicide.

    The attorneys confirmed their awareness, leading the court to dismiss the suit.

    “Because of the passage of the Criminal Offences (Amendment) Act, 2021, this action is moot and, therefore, struck out,” Justice Baffoe-Bonnie ruled.

    Other members of the panel included Justices Avril Lovelace Johnson, Issifu Omoro Tanko Amadu, Emmanuel Yonny Kulendi, Ernest Yao Gaewu, Yaw Darko Asare, and Richard Adjei-Frimpong.

    Background on the Suit

    In 2021, lawyer Christian Lebrechet Malm-Hesse filed a case with the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutionality of Section 57 (2) of the Criminal Offences Act, 1960 (Act 29), which criminalized attempted suicide.

    Mr. Malm-Hesse argued that Section 57 (2) of Act 29, which classified attempted suicide as a criminal offence, was unconstitutional. Previously, this section categorized “attempt to commit suicide” as a misdemeanor, punishable by up to three years’ imprisonment. He asserted that individuals attempting suicide were suffering from mental disabilities and should receive psychological treatment rather than incarceration.

    He further contended that a mentally challenged person could not possess the intent (mens rea) to commit a crime. Therefore, he argued, the offence of “attempt to commit suicide” could not be classified as a crime since the necessary mental element for a crime was absent.

    “A person who has a malfunctioning mind does not have the mind to form a mens rea to commit a crime,” the plaintiff averred.

    He also argued that it was unconstitutional to punish a person for acting on such a mental disability.

    According to him, punishing someone who attempts suicide constitutes discrimination based on their disability. Therefore, the plaintiff sought the apex court’s declaration of Section 57 (2) of Act 29 as unconstitutional, citing violations of Article 15 (respect for human dignity), Article 17 (freedom from discrimination), and Article 29 (rights of disabled persons) of the 1992 Constitution.

    New Legislation

    Following advocacy efforts from civil society organizations, psychologists, and other interest groups, Parliament amended Act 29 in March of last year, removing ‘attempted suicide’ from the penal code of the country.

    The private members’ bill was sponsored by Kwame Anyimadu-Antwi, the New Patriotic Party Member of Parliament (MP) for Asante Akim Central, and Bernard Ahiafor, the National Democratic Congress MP for Akatsi South.

    The primary aim of the bill was to recognize attempted suicide as a mental health condition and to provide support for those in such circumstances.

    This law is also expected to help reduce prison overcrowding and lighten the caseload for prosecutors.